Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 16, 2011 6:30am-7:00am PST

6:30 am
described earlier with regards to if there was two competing mares. >> can you explain this? you can have two people claiming to be the appointed bishop attorney in the scenario i am talking about? >> this has happened from time to time for various state and can take and local offices. there is lock where for a variety of reasons, there might be two individuals claiming to hold an office simply because an appointed body has said that there is a vacancy and the pirates in, it does not believe there is one and they are contesting that. the general procedure is a warrant proceeding which is the exclusive remedy to try to figure out who has legal title to the office. under california state law, the proceeding can only be brought once you have permission from the attorney general. the attorney general's office
6:31 am
would give leave to sue perhaps one of the two individuals and then that would go to court and the court would make a determination as to hold title to the office. >> thank you very much. the reason i wanted to ask the question is because what we are talking about is that the aims and purposes and the vacancies also the fact that we have a vacancy at the district attorney's office. we are talking about 80 offices under the charter of the city and county of san francisco that have been located here and that is pretty significant. thank you. >> thank you. >> just a quick observation. we have been talking about an unprecedented situation and circumstance here. i am of the opinion that for an orderly transition of leadership, we do need a date certain. not having a date certain is creating confusion and
6:32 am
uncertainty that we have right now. i would ask and hoped that we can understand what that date certain will be because that is compounding the situation that we have here. simply an observation. >> >> just to follow the questions. i love the way that supervisor campos asked his questions. sometimes you past the first part but not the second part because i know that you will know what the answer will be. if they ignore the two presidents that happened, if
6:33 am
weakside to ignore all of that and try to appoint someone and declaring a date -- if we decide to ignore all of that and try to appoint someone and declare a vacancy, can you explain, if we go through that process and there is that proceeding. what happens to the individual if they take of the appointment as>> there are too. one is what happens to the decision made by that individual if the court determines the individual was not properly in the office at the time the decisions were made. as my colleague said, the de facto doctrine would protect the consistency of those decisions
6:34 am
so there would not be any effort or necessity of going back and trying to recreate the record with regard to those prior actions. with regard to the individual who has assumed the office improperly, if ultimately determined by a court to have done so, and if ultimately ejected from the office by a court, that individual could be subject to a penalty of up to, i think, $5,000, if issued by the court, and also could be subject -- personally subject to damages to the individual who was the office holder, the incumbent, who claimed that he or she was improperly ejected or was improperly subjected to this individual claiming their office. supervisor elsbernd: then i will do my little summation. i am sure you'll have one. if i am heraring the recommendation that we should declare a vacancy contrary to
6:35 am
the legal advice, contrary to the president, would be putting someone in a position where if we appointed them and they took action, they would be subject to financial and further damages. respectfully, i think the idea being put forward here is a little ridiculous. we have asked the questions. we have heard the answers. i think we can all understand this is not the path to take. supervisor avalos: with all due respect to the supervisor, i do not think any path has been suggested about what to do. we just raised some questions. supervisor campos raised a lot of questions that i think should be raised as to whether lieutenant governor-elect gavin newsom has the spirit of the constitution of california. it is a valid question. there have been differences. i do not think that a lieutenant
6:36 am
governor-elect gavin newsom is going to say he is delaying his swearing in so that the current board of supervisors could not appoint an interim mayor. but a lot of us seem to know at heart that that is really what is going on here. we have had two editorials in the "san francisco chronicle" which discussed the current board not being the ones that should be appointing the new interim mayor. that is what has been giving mayor gavin newsom cover to delay his swearing in ceremony. he has said he still has work to accomplish. that was expressed by many members here who are living today on the board of supervisors. they have more work to accomplish as well. really, the work we do as elected officials is never going to end. lieutenant governor-elect gavin newsom has been making chaos here that we have to ask these
6:37 am
questions before this audience. we have to get outside counsel to deal with questions. it is the kind of chaos that lieutenant governor-elect gavin newsom has imposed on the city and county of san francisco. i would say that democratic voters voted him lieutenant governor. to have him in office and a certain date. if devon knew some had been governor -- if gavin newsom had taken office as governor, he would have taken office as november 3. the state of california since january 3 is the time the person should be assuming office. i do not think i have to ask counsel about this. i assume a republican is still lieutenant governor right now. his staff is still getting paid. the people who are democrats who supported gavin newsom to be lieutenant governor did not want to see republicans remaining in office for an extended week, or
6:38 am
who knows how long it is going to be until lieutenant governor- elect gavin newsom feels that he is ready to assume office. god forbid if something were to happen to our present often under -- our present governor, jerry brown, abel modlinato would be our new governor, and a belief he would be our governor for four years. i believe we would be very let down to know that we have given up our governor's seat to a republican. [applause] supervisor campos: if i may, mr. president, a follow-up question to what supervisor elsbernd was asking about outside counsel. there is no case directly addressing the issue of the legality of when a person becomes lieutenant governor.
6:39 am
talking about the fines in damages supervisor elsbernd was referring to in terms of an individual being subjected to them -- if the court found that gavin newsom was not legally the mayor of san francisco and he were to make an appointment of a district attorney, would those fines and damages be also levied against that individual, along the lines of what supervisor elsbernd indicated? >> with regard to an appointee to the attorney general position or the district attorney position? supervisor campos: if mayor newsom is found to not legally be the mayor of san francisco and appointed district attorney who makes the decision
6:40 am
supervisor elsbernd was referring to, could that person be subject to the damages and find supervisor elsbernd is talking about? >> we have not researched it, but it is not likely that individual would be liable, given that he was appointed by a person who he or she understood was lawfully holding the position of mayor. supervisor campos: you do not think there is any possibility a court could find that person? >> we think it is unlikely that a court would. we cannot say there is no possibility. we've not research the question. we think it is unlikely. that is not to say that the person who made the appointment would not potentially be subject to fines and penalties and damages if ordered by a court. but not the individual who was appointed. supervisor campos: following up on that, are you referring to the person who made the appointment? who would that be in that case? >> gavin newsom, in the scenario
6:41 am
you describe it. supervisor campos: it is possible he could be subjected to fines and damages? >> that is correct. the point is any officer who is ultimately determined by a court in a quo warranto procedure not to hold the office is potentially subject to fines, penalties, and damages assessed by a court. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor mar: any additional -- president chiu: any additional discussion? supervisor daly: i had a motion on the floor to continue this item. i think that there are interesting questions being asked. and while i still believe that we are not quite there to deal with this today, and i think these questions even compound my initial feelings, on our calendar today we do have a special order, or a couple of special orders, one of which is
6:42 am
the creation of the cbd here in the civic center. i believe that hearing needs to happen. i am wondering if perhaps it would make sense for us to pass over this item to deal with that business, which i hear should take less than 30 minutes, and then to return to this item so that city staff is not in a position where they have to mail out ballots again if this goes very, very long. president chiu: supervisor daly is recommending we passover this item until now. unless there is an objection, why don't we proceed to other items remaining? let us finish the rest of the adoption calendar. madam clark, could you call items 47 through 63? >> that are for your immediate
6:43 am
unanimous adoption and will be voted on by a single roll call vote, unless a supervisor requests an item to be severed and discussed. president chiu: would anyone like to sever any of these items? supervisor alioto-pier: 47, please. president chiu: other items? if we could take a roll call b vote on items 48 through 63. president chiu: aye. supervisor campos: -- supervisor chu: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: those
6:44 am
resolutions are adopted. we need to go back to item 47. >> item 47 is a resolution in support of the kpsa morning show. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: no. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor maxwell: no. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. >> there are 7 ayes and 3 nos. president chiu: this resolution is adopted.
6:45 am
>> i am sorry. there were 6 ayes and 4 nos. sometimes it is very hard to hear if you are not speaking directly into your microphone. president chiu: again, the resolution is adopted. we now go to our second 3:00 special order, items 27 and 28. >> items 27 and 28 are the hearing of persons interested in are objecting to the proposed resolution establishing a property based business improvement district to be known as the civic center community but the district, ordering the levees conducted against properties in that district for 10 years, commencing with fiscal year 2011-12. president chiu: we will hear
6:46 am
testimony of proposed levy and assessments for a proposed district improvement pursuant to the board of supervisors resolution adopted by the board of supervisors and to hear objections to the management district plan and the engineer's report dated september 14, 2010. after the adoption of the october 27 resolution, the city mailed ballots to property owners. then the community benefits district steering committee submitted an amended management district plan and and engineers report dated september 1, 2010 that removed all upper plaza condominiums at van ness, keeping the applause of four commercial retail within the district. the amendment under the management district plan contains approximately 203 identified parcells located on approximately 35 whole or
6:47 am
partial blocks in the city hall and civic center plaza area, including the adjacent portion of market street. at the conclusion of today's public hearing, the department of elections will tabulate the ballots. members of the public may view the tabulation at the basement level of city hall in room 59. the board of supervisors will neither approved or oppose if there is a majority vote. the public, testimony will be as follows. we will hear from all speakers in support of the assessment district for up to 2 minutes per speaker. we will hear from all speakers in opposition. if a property owner wishes to change a vote or has not yet voted, they may speak to the department of election staff at a table outside the board chambers, who will provide an affidavit and the ballot. after the board closes, the ballots will be counted. at this time, unless there are additional comments by
6:48 am
supervisors, or if there are any introductory comments by city staff -- do you have anything you would like to say? >> thank you, supervisors. today, you are hearing the resolution to establish the civic center community benefit district, following public testimony. the testimony will be talking about the proposed amendment to the management district plan and the engineer's report dated december 14, 2010. so if you approve the resolution, that will include removing the upper part of the condominium parcels from the management district plan and adjusting the boundaries accordingly. today, members of the public will speak for and against the district, and then the elections
6:49 am
department will tabulate the ballot results. president chiu: great. if there are members of the public that wish to speak in support of the assessment district, please step up to the microphone. you have up to 2 minutes per speaker.
6:50 am
>> good evening, members of the board of supervisors. my name is karen england and i have been a consultant working with a very dedicated and committed group of public and private stakeholders' on this plan for the past 18 months. this is the final hearing honest -- hearing on this cbd, and i urge your support with the proposed amendments. i presented our plan already but would like to give you a few highlights and go over the resolutions. thank you. the major resolution we have before you today is for guarding the residence. we have met with them. well they are very much in support of the district, they
6:51 am
would prefer not to participate financially. our steering committee has met and agreed that we would rather not cross arms here. we would rather have people favorable and interested in being part of the district. it is very easy to remove the residents from the district. it does impact the budget and we have made those adjustments accordingly. cbd -- we are talking about services above and beyond what the city is providing. we are providing cleaning, safety, beautification, and advocacy. we believe this district is relate -- it would be terrific for city center. what we do know in terms of the ballot returns -- how many are returned? we will know the results later tonight. but there has been an enormous turnout in voting. about half the district is owned privately and about half is owned by the public sector. of the private-sector, about 45% have voted. that is a big turnout.
6:52 am
upper plaza has also voted, about 40% of them. among the city, state, and other owned parcels, about 43% have voted. that is a large voter turnout for this district. we believe there are many parcel south of market who came in at the end. well your board is in transition, at civic center -- president chiu: thank you very much. next speaker. >> mr. president, supervisors, i am jim hass, coordinator of the civic center stakeholders group. we have made great efforts in the last two nights to get the boat in -- vote in. it is somewhat, actually, amazing to me that virtually all
6:53 am
the large property owners who will be expected to pay 10, 15, 20, $25,000 in annual assessments have participated in the process, and most of them have voted in favor. there are a couple that did not vote at all. through the efforts of your former colleagues in city government, and jesse bowden and michael cohen, the bank of america computer center, and the san francisco marked have voted in the process. in terms of the size of the project, of the property owners, we have a huge turnout. second, i want to remind you that of the city properties, a significant portion of them are revenue producing.
6:54 am
they are going to pass on the cost to the symphony and other users who agreed to pay that charge. the tenant of the civic auditorium is well aware and is paying $25,000 a year. this process started about seven years ago. we had the first a calder's meeting. this is hopefully the end of the process. the purpose of this district is to give a coherence to the civic center so that the streets and the non-private property areas have the attention which it has not been given. so i urge you to -- president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am proud to say that when i elected mr. brown mayor, i
6:55 am
suggested to him that union square the made a community and the district. it happened. they cleaned it up. it was a disgraceful place with homeless urinating and defecating. it was out of control. it became a beautiful place. all of the merchants did well because of it. this is what should be done in every district in the city, including mine, of the waterfront. this is the most heavily used district. we do not have one. but lisa is finally working on it, and i hope to see it soon. i am very hopeful you will pass this because it is so beneficial, especially in the preferred districts like civic center. this is a place where many people come, it is the waterfront downtown. it should be given special consideration because of its priority and its importance. i cannot say enough to please pass it. thank you.
6:56 am
>> i run the noe valley cbd, and i consult with other neighborhoods on establishing theirs. they are committed to improving business districts, parks, streets, and other spaces. the create a strong sense of community because the force all the stakeholders in the district to come to the table and discuss and plan and negotiate. they improve the quality of life and experience of the neighborhoods. we proposed a cbd for noe valley two years ago. there are a good idea. they gathered very disparate neighborhood groups to form me -- the noe valley cbd. the egos are different, but the
6:57 am
goal is the same. how the major community a better place -- safe, lively, prosperous, and interesting? city center has more to offer the citizens of san francisco, but it needs improvements at street level, making it more accessible and simple to use, to really make it come alive. cbd has offered the best format for public and private partnerships which work and have tangible results to show for it. think of the five neighborhoods from five years ago and how well those neighborhoods look. each has a unique sense of place, which makes them interesting and brings people from all over the city to explore them. there is a continuity of place which creating a cbd for civic center can do, which can enliven and make the center of our city a center to be proud of, which will bring new kinds of people to the area and foster new types of businesses. one of the best benefits is how
6:58 am
it promotes social interaction by activating public space, which in turn creates community and city pride. that is it. thank you. [laughter] >> that was good. >> hello, supervisors. i am jennifer norris, executive secretary to the memorial board. i am here to urge you to improve the cbd for civic center. the opera, ballet, and symphony were pulled numerous times as to whether they thought it would be of benefit to their patrons, and they all approved a 5% rental increase to cover the cost of this. it gives us the ability to extend the welcomeing campus into city center in a way that has embassadors, street entertainment, beautifies, and make people feel safe. if we really believe in transit force, we need to make it safe
6:59 am
and accommodating for people want to come to the ballet, opera, and symphony and leave at 11:00 at night and feel like they have a safe place. the biggest challenge is directly adjacent to the property -- not when they get off the train in their home district, but right here. it is embarrassing. i think it is time for us to step forward and make a way for us to all come together and make this the jewel we know it is. >> i need to make the statement into the record. this contradicts our very nature as an animal. what is truth? every deed and never experiences what it is. it is a principle of respect from one human being and from one human being and another.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on